Myers v. Commonwealth, 857 S.E.2d 805

Police stopped a parked SUV after smelling marijuana; three occupants including Myers (driver) were ordered out and the vehicle was searched.
Officers found a BB handgun in the driver’s door pocket and a blue backpack on the front passenger floorboard within arm’s reach of the driver; the backpack faced outward with straps touching the seat.
The backpack’s front pocket was unzipped; the back (seat-facing) pocket was fully zipped. An officer unzipped the back pocket “with ease” and retrieved two BB guns and a .40 handgun.
A wallet in the center console contained Myers’s ID and a .40 cartridge matching the handgun’s magazine; Myers claimed ownership of the handgun and cartridge.
Myers was convicted at a bench trial of carrying a concealed weapon (second offense); the Court of Appeals affirmed.
The Virginia Supreme Court reversed, holding the vehicle exception in Code § 18.2-308(C)(8) applied because a fully zipped backpack qualifies as a handgun “secured in a container” in a personal vehicle.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the handgun was carried “about his person” under Code § 18.2-308(A)	Commonwealth: firearm within arm’s reach in vehicle is effectively "about his person."	Myers: handgun in a zipped backpack on passenger floorboard was not carried on or about his person.	Court did not need to definitively narrow Schaaf’s reach here; resolved case on statutory-exception ground.
Whether the § 18.2-308(C)(8) vehicle exception applies when the handgun is in a fully zipped (but unlocked) backpack	Commonwealth: “secured” requires more than a zip that can be opened "with ease"; a zipped backpack is not sufficiently secured.	Myers: “secured” does not mean “locked” and includes a fully zipped backpack as a secured container.	Held for Myers: “secured” includes a fully zipped soft container; the exception applies and conviction reversed.
Allocation of burdens for statutory exceptions in § 18.2-308	Commonwealth: exceptions should not be treated as elements of the offense.	Myers: defendant may raise the statutory exception as a defense.	Court: subsections B–D are affirmative defenses; defendant bears burden of production (more than a scintilla); Commonwealth retains burden of persuasion beyond a reasonable doubt to overcome the defense.

Sutherland v. Commonwealth, 109 Va. 834 (1909) (early definition of “about the person” as readily accessible for use)
Schaaf v. Commonwealth, 220 Va. 429 (1979) (overruled Sutherland and held a handgun in a handbag may be "about the person")
Doulgerakis v. Commonwealth, 61 Va. App. 417 (2013) (legislative history shows the General Assembly substituted “secured” for “locked”)
Hodges v. Commonwealth, 64 Va. App. 687 (2015) (discussed meaning of “secured” and vehicle exception; Court of Appeals’ latched/fastened test)
Simopoulos v. Commonwealth, 221 Va. 1059 (1981) (allocation of burdens when a defendant raises a defense that, if believed, creates reasonable doubt)
Vasquez v. Commonwealth, 291 Va. 232 (2016) (standard of appellate review: view evidence in light most favorable to the Commonwealth)